My F'ed up story of the day

[lbpd16]

2 available RCA's in my office, me included. 1 RCA quit, 1 reg was out on extended sick, 2 reg out FMLA. No other help available. All during Christmas rush. This left 1 route unfilled every day. Our district mandates that RCA's have 1 day off every 7 days. To fill that route either the super or the PM ran the route on the days me and the other RCA were off.

The union steward filed a grievance on our behalf without even telling us. Grievance apparently was that the super and PM were taking hours from me and the other RCA and that we should have worked every day without a day off.

Found out yesterday we won the grievance and we will both be getting paid in the next check or one after.

I can't begin to fathom how F'ed up this is. Neither me nor the other RCA wanted to work every day. We actually were looking for some extra time off since we were working 6a to 6p 6 days a week.

The PM and super were just following district's orders. We both actually went 1 week without a day off and the PM got a nasty gram from district for doing it.

In my office the union steward and PM/super have been going at each other every chance they get. I'm sure this was another attempt at that by the union.

I guess the union contended that district's orders violated the contract???

I can't make sense of any of this.

USPS and the union are both F'ed up.

 

[MiddleOfNowhere]

take the money and run... you got paid for not working, and got time off

 

[oi veh.]

Take the money and run. Your stew did you a favor.

And his/her job. There were no RCAs available out of office? Read the Order of Consideration. Are you saying that your office has 3 regulars and none of them are working?

 

[btdtret]

Ibpd16 -- " Our district mandates that RCA's have 1 day off every 7 days."

-- Probably consider yourself fortunate the District mandates a day off every 7 days.

-- Some RCA's have posted of working 7 days a week for months on end, thanks in part of Amazon Sunday's.

-- PM and supervisor caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Maybe they should be asking District why there are no RCA's in the hiring pipeline.

-- As others have posted, take the money and run. Not every day an RCA gets paid for not working.

-- Unfortunately the situation will cause a bigger rift between manglement and the carriers.

-- But it is manglement that does the hiring, so have them redouble their efforts to attract someone. And should they actually get someone in the door, treat the individual with some understanding and respect.

 

[hunchback]

One thing that is kind of strange about this situation:

I remember during the debate, on here, spurred by the topic "Working Off The Clock", more than once people made the point that only peeps in the office where other peeps were working off the clock could raise the issue, saying something to the effect the Union Can't initiate a grievance, the affected parties have to do so... Or is my memory inaccurate on this issue?

 

[12345]

What is fair? I would do an occasional Sunday for time and a half based on my 46k pay and no bitching when it took a lot longer than expected to deliver in area I am unfamiliar with. Maybe everyone in the rotation including PMs, supervisors, and clerks is the answer.

I think my district also mandates the 1 day off every 7 days for RCAs so 5 and 1 aux carriers are exempt from Amazon. This forces other RCAs in the rotation to work more Amazon Sundays. This causes more RCAs to quit which leaves less coverage during the week plus the RCAs that did not quit are required to work even more Sundays. In offices that claim one for all and all for one do the aux carriers volunteer for 1 Sunday a month to take the strain off the other RCAs?

I know my PM has said he or she will be required to do Amazon on Sunday if no RCAs available and that is a non starter.

I think $25 or $30 an hour and also be allowed to occasionally say, "I cannot work today" would be sufficient to lure applicants for Sunday delivery in my area. Higher cost of living areas might require more.

 

[gotstamps]

One thing that is kind of strange about this situation:

I remember during the debate, on here, spurred by the topic "Working Off The Clock", more than once people made the point that only peeps in the office where other peeps were working off the clock could raise the issue, saying something to the effect the Union Can't initiate a grievance, the affected parties have to do so... Or is my memory inaccurate on this issue?

When 2 or more carriers are effected, the Steward can file a Class-Action Grievance. Any rural work done by non-rural craft can be grieved if subs are sitting at home. Just because District makes a rule doesn’t mean it is if it goes against contractual rights.
Both subs being placed off-duty while another craft ran their route is a contract violation.

 

[hunchback]

So if 2 or more carriers are effected, have their contract pay reduced because of other carriers "Working Off The Clock",
So then the Union can file a Class-Action Grievance?

 

[Rt2mailman]

Yes, if the steward, local, area, or district rep., is made aware of the non-contractual order, they may file a grievance for 2 or more carriers. They may also file for an individual carrier if they have reason to believe that, that carrier, is "afraid" of retaliation from their manager, or have evidence to show previous retaliation.

 

[hunchback]

Yes

Thank You

 

[csparks]

I get it IBPD Something like an independent streak. Just treat me civilly, and pay me what I'm due.

I suppose the big picture is this is somehow a failure to manage; they were called on it, and had to pay. Even though you didn't want to be the beneficiary, it had to go somewhere. The issue for you is the image that you reaped what you didn't deserve, OR are somehow complicit it a whiner's conspiracy. Not something I'd like to associate with, either.
The sad part is this stems from a failure to confront the huge issues that exist way up top. The old "stuff rolls downhill" deal.

BTW, I gotta send you a PM about something related.

 

[EthelAnne]

The sad part is this stems from a failure to confront the huge issues that exist way up top. The old "stuff rolls downhill" deal.

I disagree. I think this is exactly what the union is trying to do in this instance: confront the issue, which is a failure to hire and retain leave replacements. Filing a grievance and making the USPS pay is the leverage the union has to get management to do their jobs. If there are no consequences for them not hiring leave replacements, they won't. This office and this manager just felt the consequences for not doing their jobs.

Reading through this thread, what makes me sad is that I feel the union is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. In this instance, the union has taken a step to address the staffing shortage in this office. Isn't that what we want the union to do?

 

[lbpd16]

Maybe I would have a different opinion if I saw the union was doing things at a higher level. But seeing them on their asses eating and drinking on my dime at some hotel somewhere and not doing anything about our current contract or conditions makes me angry.

The stuff they pull at the lower level doesnt make up for their failure at the top levels.

 

[Windindaface]

I thought LOCAL District decrees only applied to the city side.

 

[stillfirstclass]

Yes, if the steward, local, area, or district rep., is made aware of the non-contractual order, they may file a grievance for 2 or more carriers. They may also file for an individual carrier if they have reason to believe that, that carrier, is "afraid" of retaliation from their manager, or have evidence to show previous retaliation.

can i have doc. for this?

 

[hunchback]

I disagree. I think this is exactly what the union is trying to do in this instance: confront the issue, which is a failure to hire and retain leave replacements. Filing a grievance and making the USPS pay is the leverage the union has to get management to do their jobs. If there are no consequences for them not hiring leave replacements, they won't. This office and this manager just felt the consequences for not doing their jobs.

Reading through this thread, what makes me sad is that I feel the union is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. In this instance, the union has taken a step to address the staffing shortage in this office. Isn't that what we want the union to do?

EthelAnne I agree the Union did the right thing here. I just wanted to point out if they can do ii, step in like they did on this issue, then they could be proactive on other issues of importance to their members, I only used the whole "Working Off The Clock" issue because it was debated to death on here with seemingly 2 distinct views,
One saying it was all or mostly a failure of the Union that Working off The Clock continues decade after decade
The other saying the Union can't do anything without the carriers first stepping up.
I've always heard someone who is effected MUST initiate the grievance, if two or more effected file for the same thing, then the Union can roll them together as a Class Action.
It is nice to know the Union CAN initiate a grievance when a clear violation of the contract occurs and none either notices/knows the contract or no one is willing to step up